There is not much benefit for anyone to come out as a pedophile.
I remember OmniPolitics from youtube.
He came out as a pedophile and wanted to debate it, but got a bunch of death threats and even people posting his address everywhere on internet while saying things like "now we know where you live".
The only thing person gets for coming out as pedophile is death threats, social condemnation or just insults.
I literally cant vote on this because I am too biased against school book and frying pan, I hate fried food, and I do consider dildo a valuable member of society.
I am not sure if it would be okay to make these easy wins rated, as the topic is barely a debate. Basically, all what opponent needs to do is show up with any argument to win.
1. Its an insignificant cost to USA (3% of yearly budget)
2. It improves total productivity
3. It helps poor people and their children
Now, I actually expected that my opponent will suggest 250$ or 700$ instead of 500$, which I considered was the strongest counter-argument since it would make me difficult to prove that 500$ is better than both of those.
You can present Capitalism as an alternative to this system.
You can say that this system is unachivable.
Its true that I left very little room for my opponent to argue, as by definition this system is good for society and better for society than Capitalism,
and it would be very difficult to argue that its unachivable, given how many countries in the world have achieved "to each according to his need" to a great extent.
So yes, anyone accepting this debate would likely have trouble.
But what else am I supposed to debate?
Do you want to switch sides, so you defend this topic and I defend capitalism as an alternative?
Does astrology include tarot cards?
You cannot accept this challenge because you do not meet the minimal rating requirement
Well, I have added the definition
Which definition do you want?
I think ability to move or think is a better superpower.
There you go.
There is not much benefit for anyone to come out as a pedophile.
I remember OmniPolitics from youtube.
He came out as a pedophile and wanted to debate it, but got a bunch of death threats and even people posting his address everywhere on internet while saying things like "now we know where you live".
The only thing person gets for coming out as pedophile is death threats, social condemnation or just insults.
It is hard to tell for sure how many pedophiles are there in the world.
I assume not much.
I literally cant vote on this because I am too biased against school book and frying pan, I hate fried food, and I do consider dildo a valuable member of society.
I am not sure if it would be okay to make these easy wins rated, as the topic is barely a debate. Basically, all what opponent needs to do is show up with any argument to win.
If they were real women from start, they wouldnt need to transition to be women.
Even after they transition, they lack many qualities which only most women have.
"terrible relevance to the anime logic or truths in it?"
Well, I didnt watch either anime.
In fact, the only thing I used were those pages in description, but only a bit from both.
This was supposed to be a funny battle I think, so thats what I went for.
Well played.
Plenty of left wing countries are shitholes.
I dont think I would be much challenge there, since speed chess is far out of my abilities.
I like having both wings.
As women, of course 😝
They cant reproduce.
Controlling the center is always a problem for me, even if I copy chess masters.
Computer comes up with some trick to make me lose pawn in the center or forces me to trade it.
I simply dont have brain for chess.
I dont even like playing against real opponents because I make such dumb mistakes sometimes.
I play against computer because I can undo moves, but most real opponents would crush me unless they are total beginners.
Well, if I had to choose between dildo or a school book, sure I would choose dildo.
I mean, what would I even need a school book for?
And I am mostly straight, just to be clear.
Are you arguing for abortion or against?
After that round one, I really cant tell.
I am very bad at chess.
I lose 9 out of 10 games against computer at highest difficulty.
The one that I dont lose, I dont win either.
It becomes draw due to me repeating moves to avoid defeat.
Its difficult to remember all openings and all counter openings, and all follow up moves.
I guess computer can do it easily.
Thats why I always feel that computer at highest difficulty doesnt make mistakes.
It seems like it knows everything from the start.
And my memory is bad, so I am not really good at chess unless I put effort to memorize everything, which might happen one day.
Research takes priority. We can debate later. I dont rush to have debate.
Good debate 😁
Well, antinatalism is a belief that its wrong to reproduce.
Military first policy is a policy which says that building the military is the greatest priority of society.
Now, if you are interested in debate, it seems that we can debate abortion.
I would like if topic was something like "Abortion is morally good" with me as Pro.
If you are not interested right now, we have at least established point of disagreement.
Are there any other topics you would like to debate?
Here is where I stand on different issues:
Abortion (pro)
Trans acceptance (pro)
Corporal punishment of children (Con)
Antinatalism (pro)
Songun military first policy (Pro)
Mass child circumcision (Con)
I understand.
I expected that someone who accepts this would defend Capitalism, and my opening argument mostly focuses on countering Capitalism.
If you feel like accepting, let me know which rules to change and which to keep.
Maximum time for argument in rated is one week.
If thats not suitable, we can do standard which has response time 2 weeks.
I am fine with any of those.
As for number of rounds, I think 3 or 4 is good, but let me know what you think.
My basic arguments were:
1. Its an insignificant cost to USA (3% of yearly budget)
2. It improves total productivity
3. It helps poor people and their children
Now, I actually expected that my opponent will suggest 250$ or 700$ instead of 500$, which I considered was the strongest counter-argument since it would make me difficult to prove that 500$ is better than both of those.
"are you defending communism like how China is"
I defend the democratic management of ownership and workplace, along with needs being satisfied and everyone contributing according to ability.
I already have one debate about Communism, and you can see my first round there which will be same as first round here.
I agree that creating more people is bad.
But you seem to have put much more thought in it than I did.
I mainly focus on pain argument alone.
Well, what exactly do you suggest that I debate?
You can present Capitalism as an alternative to this system.
You can say that this system is unachivable.
Its true that I left very little room for my opponent to argue, as by definition this system is good for society and better for society than Capitalism,
and it would be very difficult to argue that its unachivable, given how many countries in the world have achieved "to each according to his need" to a great extent.
So yes, anyone accepting this debate would likely have trouble.
But what else am I supposed to debate?
Do you want to switch sides, so you defend this topic and I defend capitalism as an alternative?
Well?
Zeus exists.
Yeah.
"Slave morality looks to create a dichotomy of good and evil by classifying people in two distinct groups."
Yeah, the Communists and the non-Communists.
Anyone who is not one is the other.
I cant always debate on the side I agree with.
Sometimes one must change sides to make it more interesting.
Its a debate.
I am supposed to disagree, even if I dont believe in what I am saying.
You cant really have a debate unless we take opposite sides in topic and unless we disagree.
So the point is to disagree, so to say.
Of course, I do plan to concede in next round, as your side of the topic is mathematical truism.
Eh, arguing against truisms is not easy.
I am certain that switching doesnt make more sense.
I was just stating the opinion I found on google.
On google, anyone can write any assumption.
But after doing the mathematical calculation myself, I realized that guy on google is wrong.
Given that I am your opponent, revealing it in comments is not really "revealing" of any kind to your opponent.
Yeah, apparently,
With 2 fake doors and 1 proper door,
You have 66% chance to pick fake doors during first choice.
So when given second choice, the doors you first picked are 66% likely to be fake doors, so switching makes more sense.
Anyone interested in accepting the debate?
I think this is basically a truism if judge has an interest for you to open wrong doors.
So this entire debate is about what "at" means?
"Does human greed exist in this society?"
Yes.
"What is the societal culture like?"
Culture? Each society has its own customs.
I dont see why would Communist societies be limited to just one culture.
"Who will enforce people to contribute, because of obvious backlash."
Well, if you can work but refuse to, you wont get payed.
Sounds simple enough.
"Who will regulate property and security of property, because after all, in your definition ownership is still a thing."
Ownership is always a thing.
Security of property is regulated by democratically elect government.
Property is owned collectively, thus cannot be regulated outside of collective regulation or its chosen representatives.
Its the definition I found on google.
You can consider it as democratic ownership, to make it simple, because thats what will be defended in debate.
You can present an option which would be a better system, as a counter.
However, I will not agree to some different definition of Communism, because that would change the topic.
Do you want to change the topic to "Communism vs Capitalism", where we keep my definition of Communism and use your definition of Capitalism?
If you plan to debate abortion in the future, make sure to create topics which are easier to defend, such as:
"In most cases, abortion is morally wrong"
While defining abortion to limit it to intentional termination of human pregnancy.
You really dont want to be forced to account for human miscarriages or animal abortions.
You also dont want to defend cases where abortion is more morally justified, such as rape cases or pregnancies which would result in death anyway.
You want to argue what happens in most cases, which is the easier to defend than arguing all cases.
You can try to argue all cases, but thats very difficult to defend, as there are cases where both mother and fetus die unless abortion is performed.
I have added the definition you requested.
Since community owns everything, enforcing contributions is done in a democratic way, in a workplace, since I will be defending democracy after all.
The workplace is still going to operate by profit, as that is the best way to ensure contribution.